Dear LSR WG,

I object on two basis ...

1)

The version -04 does not contain normative MUST that UPA shall only be used
to trigger invalidation when end to end encapsulation is used for subject
application(s). So as written is in fact quite undeployable in a mixed
vendor and legacy node(s) environment doing hop by hop routing. We can't
just hope that this is all about configuring the network in a proper way.

2)

The solution is too pragmatic ... It does not look at the problem
holistically. Yes I still think the problem is worth solving but outside of
link state IGP doing UPA blast flooding everywhere domain wide even if no
nodes need that info. As discussed at length it could be done via either
BGP indirection or via PUB-SUB model (as proposed).

Regards,
Robert


On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 10:07 PM Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote:

> LSR Working Group,
>
> This begins the working group adoption call for “IGP Unreachable Prefix
> Announcement” - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04.
> Please indicate your support or objection on this list prior to September
> 7th, 2023.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to